If you read The Wellingtonian you may have seen a comment made a couple of weeks ago by a local real estate agent that a cycleway planned for Coutts Street in Kilbirnie would have a significant impact on house prices: "The impact to the value of 169 Coutts St will be severe and in the range of $50,000 to $75,000. There is a massive impact on buyers when they can't park outside". This week an angry letter writer to the same paper claimed that residents of The Parade in Island Bay should be "really alarmed" about this and that "ratepayers and homeowners are to be financially punished".So is it true? Do residents on The Parade have anything to worry about? According to the evidence the answer is no, they don't. In fact, the proposed cycleway in Island Bay might even increase property values slightly.A recent report published by Smart Growth America looked at the impact of 37 'Complete Streets' projects. A Complete Street is a multi-modal travel corridor that usually includes bike lanes i.e. very similar to what is proposed for The Parade. They found that: "Ten projects reported before-and-after data for property values. Of those ten projects, eight reported increased property values, while the remaining two reported no change. In six of these ten projects, we were able to take an additional step and compare property values along the Complete Streets project to an unimproved corridor or to citywide trends (or both) before and after the project’s completion. Of those six projects, four outpaced both the comparison and/or city. In the two remaining projects, the differences are negligible".These results are consistent with other studies. For example, in 2013 students at the University of British Colombia performed a literature review and found that residential properties near bike paths were generally "positively affected" and showed "relatively small increases in housing value". A 2006 study by the University of Delaware concluded that proximity to bike paths "either increases property values and ease of sale slightly or has no effect".Of course, trying to attribute movements in property values to any one variable is almost impossible but what these studies seem to show is that in the worst case bike lanes don't affect house prices at all and in the best case they might increase them a little. There certainly doesn't seem to be any evidence to back up the slightly hysterical claims being made that house prices near bike lanes will be negatively affected.Let's also not forget that in the case of The Parade only 34 out of 265 on-street car parks will actually be lost (with some added in nearby streets) and that only around 15 out of approximately 190 houses on The Parade don't have their own off-street parking.You can read an article that summarises the Smart Growth America report here: http://www.phillymag.com/…/how-bike-lanes-shared-streets-p…/You can read the full Smart Growth America report here:http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/…/safer-streets-stronger-…There's also a good discussion in this article about how new cycleways have had a positive effect on property prices in Sydney:http://thisbigcity.net/how-bike-lanes-can-boost-the-economy/

I agree, property values generally go up when improvements to infrastructure are made regardless of what they are. It is therefore important to note that Councillor Free and the Mayor both voted in conflict of a declared interest as shown in the register of interest available on WCC website. Their vote in favour of the Island Bay cycleway will inevitably translate into a pecuniary gain as something they must avoid at all cost.

Hi Maria, thanks for your comment but I think you are missing the point of this blog post, which is to establish that stories about property values falling dramatically because of the cycleway are not supported by any evidence and are just scare-mongering. I'm glad that you seem to agree with that point but to then reintepret my conclusion that "in the worst case bike lanes don't affect house prices at all and in the best case they might increase them a little" to be that the cycleway "will inevitably translate into a pecuniary gain" for the two councillors in question is making a massive leap. Also, the Wellington City Council Standing Orders and s. 6(1) of the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act make it very clear that a pecuniary interest only needs to be declared when it is not an interest in common with the public. In this case the likelihood of a pecuniary gain by the councillors in question is not only remote it is also clearly in common with the public. The Mayor owns property in High Street so if you are arguing that the cycleway will increase property values there then you are effectively arguing that they will be increased across all of Island Bay.

Reply

Maria van der Meel

7/9/2015 10:12:16 pm

Conflicts are registered by all councillors after they are sworn in after the elections, its lucky for us a they are published on the website so we can check. Short of seeing the "Approved Plan for Construction" I can't comment further on how big the pecuniary gain stands to be. Certainly Sarah Free and her property in Dee Street qualifies and the Mayor should have erred on the side of caution. I know Councillor Helene Ritchie refrained from voting on the Golden Mile Plan when she realized her conflict.

Phil

8/9/2015 09:40:21 am

That register isn't even up to date because Paul Eagle owns property on The Esplanade which isn't declared there. I don't think Maria is right but if she was then Paul Eagle also should have stood aside from voting on the cycleway because he also had a pecuniary interest and it doesn't matter which way you are going to vote. If Maria is right then it would stop councillors voting on most things that affect their ward so sorry Maria I don't think you are right.

Reply

Maria van der Meel

8/9/2015 10:55:29 am

Again Councillors can only declare a conflict if its registered on the website for us to check. If Paul Eagle has not declared his house on The Esplanade he can't declare a conflict, maybe it's owned by a trust or his wife. Voting against a pecuniary gain now how does that work?